Topic: My DIY bar for an alternate Tony Faulker array

[dlh]

I became interested in this 4 mic array after watching a Faulkner interview: split omnis @ 67cm and ORTF cards in the middle.  He uses wide cardioids in the center.  He didn't mention what configuration the cards were in, so I've started with ORTF.  If anyone knows more specifics about it, I'd like to know.
Careful alignment is necessary to avoid phasing issues.  Then in post, the split omni signal can be combined with the more "up front" sound to tweak the soundstage and prescence.
I used it to record a symphonic band + pipe organ concert at a local refurbed theater.
I liked the results so much I decided to build a dedicated bar out of 1" aluminum bar stock from the local hardware store.  (For the concert I used a Sabra bar that I extended by using a long piece of aluminum hex bar.)  The Sabra bar was OK but the center "swivel" is not designed for the extra length; I was never confident in its strength.

This new bar is attached via a Manfrotto stub adapter and with a little extra hardware also supports my M/S combo.  The thumbscrews were assembled from SS hex head bolts pressed into "Screw-Loc" heads.  Haven't tried it all at once yet but should provide lots of combinations.  I do more taping of acoustic classical and jazz so this was not really built for clubs or festivals

Happy building
Dave

More pictures here:
http://s900.photobucket.com/albums/ac207/montybucket_2009/Faulker%20array%20bar/
(Just pretend the red shrink tube is on the other omni) 

[bryonsos]

Interesting. I didn't know this config had a name. I ran a similar setup the other night with omnis @ 3' and cards PAS in the middle. I came out with one of my better tapes in a difficult room (a smallish to medium sized club):

http://www.archive.org/details/af2012-01-07.bryonsos

My DIY omni bar is about to get a couple new holes to make setup easier! Before I start drilling, is the 67cm important or just a guideline? A quick interwebs search brought up configs with figure 8s, but nada for this one. It's easy enough to drill the extra holes for 67cm and for the cards, but since the results @ 3' were pretty good I'm wondering if I should bother.

[page]

I became interested in this 4 mic array after watching a Faulkner interview: split omnis @ 67cm and ORTF cards in the middle.  He uses wide cardioids in the center.  He didn't mention what configuration the cards were in, so I've started with ORTF.  If anyone knows more specifics about it, I'd like to know.
Careful alignment is necessary to avoid phasing issues.  Then in post, the split omni signal can be combined with the more "up front" sound to tweak the soundstage and prescence.

qft

Do you pop the center forward at all or no?

[dlh]

I became interested in this 4 mic array after watching a Faulkner interview: split omnis @ 67cm and ORTF cards in the middle.  He uses wide cardioids in the center.  He didn't mention what configuration the cards were in, so I've started with ORTF.  If anyone knows more specifics about it, I'd like to know.
Careful alignment is necessary to avoid phasing issues.  Then in post, the split omni signal can be combined with the more "up front" sound to tweak the soundstage and prescence.

qft

Do you pop the center forward at all or no?

No, should I?
Are you referring to the ORTF pair?
I stretched a tape across the front of the array to align it?
Is there more I should know?

Thanks
Dave

[hi and lo]

Adjusting the depth of the center channels can "spread or accentuate"* the resulting mix. It is often preferred to run the center channels slightly forward of the flanking pair. A good product example is the Grace Spacebar Overbridge attachment is designed to make such an adjustment.

*shameless stolen from the SB-CMB product literature

[page]

I became interested in this 4 mic array after watching a Faulkner interview: split omnis @ 67cm and ORTF cards in the middle.  He uses wide cardioids in the center.  He didn't mention what configuration the cards were in, so I've started with ORTF.  If anyone knows more specifics about it, I'd like to know.
Careful alignment is necessary to avoid phasing issues.  Then in post, the split omni signal can be combined with the more "up front" sound to tweak the soundstage and prescence.

qft

Do you pop the center forward at all or no?

No, should I?
Are you referring to the ORTF pair?
I stretched a tape across the front of the array to align it?
Is there more I should know?

Thanks
Dave

What I'm referencing is having the center pair's capsules and each side of the flanking pair's capsules so that the line between the center and flank is at a 90 degree angle to the intended prodominant sound source (in most of our cases, PA stacks). So that you get image smear for surrounding details (which can be good or bad), but the stacks should have less comb filtering on the final mix down. I drew a picture that I'll post this evening that illustrates it.

So is what you're doing wrong? I wouldn't say so, and whether to change largely depends on what you value. If it sounds good to you, I wouldn't sweat it, but it wouldn't hurt to try on an evening when you can play around.

right as I hit post: hi-lo beat me to it.

[dlh]

Adjusting the depth of the center channels can "spread or accentuate"* the resulting mix. It is often preferred to run the center channels slightly forward of the flanking pair. A good product example is the Grace Spacebar Overbridge attachment is designed to make such an adjustment.

*shameless stolen from the SB-CMB product literature

Yes, got it.  Would that also apply to the center ORTF pair if mixed in post with the omnis, both pair panned hard L and R?

[dlh]

[/quote]

What I'm referencing is having the center pair's capsules and each side of the flanking pair's capsules so that the line between the center and flank is at a 90 degree angle to the intended prodominant sound source (in most of our cases, PA stacks). So that you get image smear for surrounding details (which can be good or bad), but the stacks should have less comb filtering on the final mix down. I drew a picture that I'll post this evening that illustrates it.

So is what you're doing wrong? I wouldn't say so, and whether to change largely depends on what you value. If it sounds good to you, I wouldn't sweat it, but it wouldn't hurt to try on an evening when you can play around.

right as I hit post: hi-lo beat me to it.
[/quote]

OK, yes, I can visualize that.
How would it work with a large acoustic ensemble with spread sound sources?
In my most recent, the array was about 6 feet behind the conductor (symphonic band) and 6 feet over his head.
The organ pipes were split L/R outside the stage.

Thanks
Dave

[page]

What I'm referencing is having the center pair's capsules and each side of the flanking pair's capsules so that the line between the center and flank is at a 90 degree angle to the intended prodominant sound source (in most of our cases, PA stacks). So that you get image smear for surrounding details (which can be good or bad), but the stacks should have less comb filtering on the final mix down. I drew a picture that I'll post this evening that illustrates it.

So is what you're doing wrong? I wouldn't say so, and whether to change largely depends on what you value. If it sounds good to you, I wouldn't sweat it, but it wouldn't hurt to try on an evening when you can play around.

right as I hit post: hi-lo beat me to it.

OK, yes, I can visualize that.
How would it work with a large acoustic ensemble with spread sound sources?
In my most recent, the array was about 6 feet behind the conductor (symphonic band) and 6 feet over his head.
The organ pipes were split L/R outside the stage.

Thanks
Dave

If I were going to, I might target a little under an angle of 40 degrees off center axis as your perpendicular target assuming that the outer edge was around 80 degrees off axis. Effectively, I'd split the stereo field/instruments into quarters and use that devision. From a soundstage perspective if it worked, I'd imagine it would create an interesting focus effect for left/right but not in the hard/pan regions and not straight on.

Personally, I'd do a 3mic mix in that sort of environment instead of a 4 since it gives more of an anchor effect having the same center mic in both channels and using the flanking omnis as the differentiation, but I can understand the benefit of having a cardioid pointing toward the area you want "in focus" (for lack of a better term related to soundstage image).

neat project 

[dlh]

[/quote]

If I were going to, I might target a little under an angle of 40 degrees off center axis as your perpendicular target assuming that the outer edge was around 80 degrees off axis. Effectively, I'd split the stereo field/instruments into quarters and use that devision. From a soundstage perspective if it worked, I'd imagine it would create an interesting focus effect for left/right but not in the hard/pan regions and not straight on.

Personally, I'd do a 3mic mix in that sort of environment instead of a 4 since it gives more of an anchor effect having the same center mic in both channels and using the flanking omnis as the differentiation, but I can understand the benefit of having a cardioid pointing toward the area you want "in focus" (for lack of a better term related to soundstage image).

neat project 
[/quote]

Thanks, the 3 mic mix is worth a try.  So many options.

Dave

[newplanet7]

What's with the M/S? Not part of the config? nice tho.

[dlh]

What's with the M/S? Not part of the config? nice tho.

No, not part of the config.  Just thought I'd run it some time for a trial sound.  I guess I could use the card for a center mic.
Just a way to get more mics on a stand.

[Walstib62]

What I'm referencing is having the center pair's capsules and each side of the flanking pair's capsules so that the line between the center and flank is at a 90 degree angle to the intended prodominant sound source (in most of our cases, PA stacks). So that you get image smear for surrounding details (which can be good or bad), but the stacks should have less comb filtering on the final mix down. I drew a picture that I'll post this evening that illustrates it.

So is what you're doing wrong? I wouldn't say so, and whether to change largely depends on what you value. If it sounds good to you, I wouldn't sweat it, but it wouldn't hurt to try on an evening when you can play around.

right as I hit post: hi-lo beat me to it.

OK, yes, I can visualize that.
How would it work with a large acoustic ensemble with spread sound sources?
In my most recent, the array was about 6 feet behind the conductor (symphonic band) and 6 feet over his head.
The organ pipes were split L/R outside the stage.

Thanks
Dave

If I were going to, I might target a little under an angle of 40 degrees off center axis as your perpendicular target assuming that the outer edge was around 80 degrees off axis. Effectively, I'd split the stereo field/instruments into quarters and use that devision. From a soundstage perspective if it worked, I'd imagine it would create an interesting focus effect for left/right but not in the hard/pan regions and not straight on.

Personally, I'd do a 3mic mix in that sort of environment instead of a 4 since it gives more of an anchor effect having the same center mic in both channels and using the flanking omnis as the differentiation, but I can understand the benefit of having a cardioid pointing toward the area you want "in focus" (for lack of a better term related to soundstage image).

neat project 

See also "Decca Tree". Not sure if that was mentioned yet or not(?)

[SmokinJoe]

Interesting.  There is more than one "Faulkner Array" I guess.  I tried this one with parallel figure 8's one night.   I did it from a boomy balcony rail, and the results were disappointing, but I expect the location killed it more than the parallel figure 8's.
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TonyFaulknerPhasedArray01Engl.pdf

Ted runs something similar to what you have frequently (omnis and cards)... it must be an AKG thing.    From a frequency response standpoint, the omnis give fat bottom end, and the cards give detail, but the timing issues drive me crazy when I listen with headphones.

[phil_er_up]

Adjusting the depth of the center channels can "spread or accentuate"* the resulting mix. It is often preferred to run the center channels slightly forward of the flanking pair. A good product example is the Grace Spacebar Overbridge attachment is designed to make such an adjustment.

*shameless stolen from the SB-CMB product literature

I have the grace bar with the Spacebar overbridge.
How far forward do you run the center channels on the bar?

[hi and lo]

Adjusting the depth of the center channels can "spread or accentuate"* the resulting mix. It is often preferred to run the center channels slightly forward of the flanking pair. A good product example is the Grace Spacebar Overbridge attachment is designed to make such an adjustment.

*shameless stolen from the SB-CMB product literature

I have the grace bar with the Spacebar overbridge.
How far forward do you run the center channels on the bar?

Unfortunately, I don't yet have my overbridge attachment. I had ordered it from Posthorn, but Jerry couldn't seem to locate it in his backstock. Going to order it from Grace's website today to remedy my situation.

I will probably run it mostly forward. More than anything, I'm just excited to experiment with some three mic setups to better isolate the performance from crowd noise. I imagine I will run it more forward, but not really sure till I do some trial and error.

I love that there is another spacebar owner on this forum. The build quality is nothing short of superb; well worth the scratch if you can afford it!

[dlh]

Ted runs something similar to what you have frequently (omnis and cards)... it must be an AKG thing.   

No doubt! 

[dlh]

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/675262-mixing-cardioid-omnis-companding.html

[boa]

"...I can understand the benefit of having a cardioid pointing toward the area you want "in focus" (for lack of a better term related to soundstage image)."

Very cool DIY project and interesting discussion. I've been using hypers (or an M/S stereo mic) with split omnis for this purpose but will now try cards out in front.

[Gutbucket]

Cool setup.  Missed this yesterday.

I can imagine this is a fantastic setup for symphonic band and pipe organ!

Tony Faulkner's similar setup has all the microphones in a line like this, instead of the center pair positioned forward of the outrigger pair.  It depends on this alignment, and because of that he calls it a 'phased array' - a beam-forming sonar/radar reference I think which achieves a degree of forward gain because of it.  I watched an interview of him talking about it a few months back that may have been the same one you mention. Since Faulkner is also recording unamplified acoustic performances, and is highly recognized as a master at doing so, I'd defer to his expertise and experience and start with recording a few things with the mics aligned in a row to establish a base-line configuration before experimenting with moving the center mic or center pair forward for more of a Decca tree-like configuration.  At that point it's no longer a phased array.  A Decca tree setup also typically has a wider base spacing of 1-2 meters, and that spacing probably also shifts things out of the 'phased array' region for all but the bottom couple octaves.  It's really a different approach than Faulkner's closer spaced setups.

I haven't tried this yet explicitly, but did something slightly similar a few years ago with meter spaced omnis flanking a blumlien pair, all mics aligned in a row.  That was to get some additional bass heft and width, and also some additional decorrelated ambience from the omnis.  That setup didn't have the forward gain advantage of this one, but I only used it outdoors where that was less important.

More on the 'other' Faulkner array in a second post..

[Gutbucket]

By coincidence, I just ran a bastardized variation on the other Faulkner array last night- the parallel figure-8 setup which more people associate with him.  I ran it on-stage as an extra pair of mics as an experiment for a regular jazz trio gig without a PA.  It's electric guitar(left), unamplified drum kit(center) and amplified acoustic bass(right).  The orientation and directive radiation of the guitar amp often makes the guitar louder than the drums and the bass.  To help balance things I shift my setup slightly towards the bass side, and then typically rotate my recording angle to point left across the drum kit (mics on the snare side) towards the guitar to help balance.  I setup my main rig that way as usual, then setup the parallel figure 8s not angled, but pointing straight ahead at the bass and snare of the drum kit (mics spaced 12”- a bit more than the Faulkner setup).  The idea being to place the guitar over in a less sensitive region of the figure 8 patterns so that it had less level, yet not all the way over in the nulls.  I actually angled the left fig-8 out ever so slightly, maybe 5-10 degrees, partly to make sure that if the patterns weren’t perfectly parallel I’d err towards more guitar level in the left channel rather than risk generate conflicting time and level differences if the patterns crossed slightly, and partly to add just a touch of level difference to the close A-B setup.

A while ago in another thread I suggested trying this as a unique setup for someone trying to limit the pickup of a source off to one side as much as possible, and figured this was as good time to give that a try, not with the guitar amp all the way to the side in the shared figure-8 nulls but over enough to limit its level in both mics.

On a quick listen when I got home, it worked pretty well.  Compared to the 8-1/2” spaced ~80-85 degree inclusive angled cardioids I had pointing across the kit, it was more like a moderately spaced omni recording image-wise, which would  be expected with the mics nearly parallel, and the guitar was lower in level than the bass and drums just as I’d hoped.

[John Willett]

Adjusting the depth of the center channels can "spread or accentuate"* the resulting mix. It is often preferred to run the center channels slightly forward of the flanking pair. A good product example is the Grace Spacebar Overbridge attachment is designed to make such an adjustment.

*shameless stolen from the SB-CMB product literature

I have the grace bar with the Spacebar overbridge.
How far forward do you run the center channels on the bar?

Unfortunately, I don't yet have my overbridge attachment. I had ordered it from Posthorn, but Jerry couldn't seem to locate it in his backstock. Going to order it from Grace's website today to remedy my situation.

I will probably run it mostly forward. More than anything, I'm just excited to experiment with some three mic setups to better isolate the performance from crowd noise. I imagine I will run it more forward, but not really sure till I do some trial and error.

I love that there is another spacebar owner on this forum. The build quality is nothing short of superb; well worth the scratch if you can afford it!

A Faulkner Array is 20cm spaced, parallel, fig.8 mics. - you can do that easily with a standard stereo bar.

[Gutbucket]

John, you posted in the same thread here where the link to the interview was as I recall.. maybe it was the Team Classical thread here.  I remember you mentioning that the interview was done in Tony's kitchen, which you recognized as you had been there previously.  The same confusion came up about the 'classic' Faulkner Array (which as I understand he came up with originally to address overbearing side reflections in a difficult acoustic) and this newer 'phased array' that he's been using more recently.. and which I assume is probably applicable to more situations with favorable acoustics.  But he'd probably agree that different situations call for different approaches.

[edit-  I was mistaken, the confusion between more than one Faulkner Array didn't come up in the Team Classical thread, maybe it was over at GS.  Here's the portion of that thread with a link to the video- http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=123523.msg1882911#msg1882911, not sure if that is the same interview dlh mentions here or not, but it is interesting.]

[bryonsos]

I'm still curious to hear thoughts about how important the 67cm spacing is. Like I said, I've been playing with this type of config with 3' omnis and PAS/DIN cards.

[Gutbucket]

I'm still curious to hear thoughts about how important the 67cm spacing is. Like I said, I've been playing with this type of config with 3' omnis and PAS/DIN cards.

Two thoughts come to mind. 

Varying the spacing of the omnis changes the stereo recording angle of the pair (in Stereo Zoom terminology), and my first thought is maybe that distance was chosen to match the stereo recording angle of the center pair.

But varying the spacing also changes the timbre balance of the frequency pickup, due to phase cancelation as sources arrive from off-axis, and I can attest to that from varying the spacing myself while listening over headphones.  So maybe it has to do with that.

Or maybe it's based on some other reasoning entirely.


Micheal Williams' published Zoom charts for omnis only go up to 50cm for a +/- 50 degee SRA (or 100 degrees total recording angle), but after arriving at the something around 3' by ear a couple times I extrapolated that chart out to a meter spacing a few years back to see what SRA a ~3' spacing should produce and the ~40 degree total recording angle result pretty much agrees with what comes out of the on-lineImage Assistant calculator- http://www.hauptmikrofon.de/ima2-folder/ImageAssistant2.html.. and was also about the same angle of sources in the situations where I arrived at that spacing just by listening.

Plugging a 67cm omni spacing into that calculator, gives a total stereo recording angle of 54 degrees.  The same calculator indicates an ORTF recording angle of 102 degrees.

But I really don’t know if the SRAs are supposed to match for the omni and directional pairs or not. You could play around with the calculator to find various configurations for the center directional pair which produce the same SRA as that of the omni pair if you want to.

Maybe someone should ask Mr. Faulkner about it!

[alpine85]

Very cool discussion!

I've been running a similar setup - coincident (or near coincident) pair in the middle and omnis with a 65cm split.  I had intended to do some post mixes and surround stuff, but up to this point I've only been choosing the better of the 2 sources (which, as expected, varies because of crowd noise, mics used, venue, all the usual variables). 

I came up with the 65cm split based on a mic config document I found somewhere - I'm thinking it was DPA's website, but it may have been Schoeps or Neumann.  They recommended that split on omnis based on the wavelength of the frequency where sound becomes "directional" (120 Hz? 150 Hz?... I forget).  Anyway, the logic was similar to the concept of a subwoofer/satellite system, applied to recording separate L/R channel audio.   If your ears can't recognize the direction of a sound, why have the delay from one channel to another - it just muddies up the sound, right?

Reading that recommendation sort of reinforced what I had found from personal experience... spreads that are too wide just sound unnatural and somehow "wrong" to my ears (especially with headphones).  I have found the 65cm spread to sound pretty good with both headphones AND speakers and give a nice stereo image. 

YMMV, of course ; )


Anyway, I wonder if that's how Faulker came up with the 67cm number...

[bryonsos]

Thanks Gut and Alpine85! That's enough to make me get the drill out and try some other spacings.

[dlh]

John, you posted in the same thread here where the link to the interview was as I recall.. maybe it was the Team Classical thread here.  I remember you mentioning that the interview was done in Tony's kitchen, which you recognized as you had been there previously.  The same confusion came up about the 'classic' Faulkner Array (which as I understand he came up with originally to address overbearing side reflections in a difficult acoustic) and this newer 'phased array' that he's been using more recently.. and which I assume is probably applicable to more situations with favorable acoustics.  But he'd probably agree that different situations call for different approaches.

[edit-  I was mistaken, the confusion between more than one Faulkner Array didn't come up in the Team Classical thread, maybe it was over at GS.  Here's the portion of that thread with a link to the video- http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=123523.msg1882911#msg1882911, not sure if that is the same interview dlh mentions here or not, but it is interesting.]

Yes, that's the same interview.  From my memory, Tony seems so expicit when he refers to 67cm that I deferred to him; I have nowhere near his knowledge or experience (or anyone here for that matter).  What I'm still not sure about, and I don't think was mentioned in the interview, is whether his wide cardioids are ORTF or some other config.  So I just thought  I'd try ORTF.  I'm already benfiting from the current discussion and really appreciate everyone's contribution to this thread (some of the best minds here).  I'd really like to know the facts about Mr. Faulkner's center pair.  I'm pretty sure I remember his placement was slightly above and behind the conductor's head which is what I shot for.  I do realize that depends on the width (size) of the ensemble.  What I was most pleased with was the way the omni's captured the split pipes of the organ (and the pedal tones).

Thanks,
Dave

[John Willett]

John, you posted in the same thread here where the link to the interview was as I recall.. maybe it was the Team Classical thread here.  I remember you mentioning that the interview was done in Tony's kitchen, which you recognized as you had been there previously.  The same confusion came up about the 'classic' Faulkner Array (which as I understand he came up with originally to address overbearing side reflections in a difficult acoustic) and this newer 'phased array' that he's been using more recently.. and which I assume is probably applicable to more situations with favorable acoustics.  But he'd probably agree that different situations call for different approaches.

[edit-  I was mistaken, the confusion between more than one Faulkner Array didn't come up in the Team Classical thread, maybe it was over at GS.  Here's the portion of that thread with a link to the video- http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=123523.msg1882911#msg1882911, not sure if that is the same interview dlh mentions here or not, but it is interesting.]

I don't have a problem with the technique - it's just that the parallel fig.8s have been well documented for very many years as a "Faulkner Array" it's just very confusing to call a totally different microphone set-up by the same name.

The parallel fig.8s were called a "Faulkner Array" many years before the new set-up so I would stick to that and find a new name for the new set-up.

After all Alan Blumlein was the main user of MS (didn't he invent that as well?) and we don't call MS "Blumlein", only crossed fig.8s.

[Gutbucket]

Good point.  Someone should come up with a better name for this one, to avoid confusing things.


edit to add-

After all Alan Blumlein was the main user of MS (didn't he invent that as well?) and we don't call MS "Blumlein", only crossed fig.8s.

True, and if I remember correctly, before a decent figure-8 was developed the good Mr Blumlein worked with two near-spaced baffled omnis, developing the concept that we now refer to as 'Jecklin Disk'.

[bryonsos]

SGTM - sounds good to me.

[alpine85]

I must be getting dyslexic in my old age... it's not actually 65 cm that I've been using on my omni spread, it's 56 cm!!

I found the document that I based this on:
http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/Mic-University/Stereo-Techniques/AB-Stereo.aspx

The whole thing is definitely worth reading, but here's the relevant section:

Microphone spacing

An important consideration when setting up for A-B stereo recordings is the distance between the two microphones. Since the acoustic character of the stereo recording is very much a question of taste, it is impossible to give fast rules for stereo microphone spacing, although it is a good idea to keep some important acoustic factors in mind.

Since the stereo width of a recording is frequency-dependent, the deeper the tonal qualities you wish to reproduce in stereo, the wider your microphone spacing should be. Using a recommended microphone spacing of a quarter of the wavelength of the deepest tone, and taking into account the human ear's reduced ability to localise frequencies below 150Hz, leads to an optimal microphone spacing of between 40 and 60 cm. Smaller microphone spacings are often used close to sound-sources to prevent the sound image of a particular musical instrument from becoming "too wide" and unnatural. Spacings down to 17 to 20 cm are detectable by the human ear, as this distance is equivalent to the distance between the two ears themselves.

[alpine85]

I'm still curious about the 67cm number that Faulkner used (btw - maybe we could call this the Faulkner Tree?  Faulkner Split?  Faulkner Spread?)

Maybe it's the space BETWEEN the center and outer mics that he's interested in --- interesting that the difference between 67 and 17 is 50 (exactly in the middle of that 40-60 range)

[dlh]

I watched part of the interview again. Tony Faulkner mentions 66.5 cm spacing on the omnis with a sub cardioid 10 cm in from each one.  While he says this, he's holding his index fingers slightly outward.  So part of my memory was wrong and I'm "definitely unsure" about the config of the two cards.  Must be 46.5 cm between them, but are they angled or straight on?  He does say when questioned about xy, " . . . no, I face the race . . .".  It's at 17:00 into the interview.  More info is better.  Ideas?

Thanks
Dave

[Gutbucket]

I watched part of the interview again. Tony Faulkner mentions 66.6 cm spacing on the omnis with a sub cardioid 10 cm in from each one.  While he says this, he's holding his index fingers slightly outward.  So part of my memory was wrong and I'm "definitely unsure" about the config of the two cards.  Must be 46.5 cm between them, but are they angled or straight on?  He does say when questioned about xy, " . . . no, I face the race . . .".  It's at 17:00 into the interview.  More info is better.  Ideas?

Thanks
Dave

I just watched it again..  Listening carefully, when asked if he uses X/Y he doesn't say "No, I face the race" but "No, phased arrays", that he arrived at the spacing empirically and it's a starting point (also mentions Onno Scholtze of Phillips using a similar spacing). From the way he describes the 'reach into the band' the array provides from the antenna-like forward 3dB gain of the 'phased array' and the the way he balances the timbre of the live mix between the omni pair and the wide card pair- "fat and boomy or thin and scratchy, or a bit of each" I get the impression he mostly points them all forward as two sets of A-B spaced pairs, but maybe not.. probably doesn't angle them much anyway.

I also caught all kinds of other stuff I missed watching it last time- like the part where asked about compression around 16:00 and he talks about setting threshold down -20dB or lower and using a minimal 1.3:1 ratio.  Heh, I caught it this time since something like a 1.2:1 ratio with a low threshold is what's been working nice and transparently for me to bring out details without squashing everything.

[Hypnocracy]

Trying to find the interview with Faulker...is this the one?

http://www.rodetv.com/iwal/interview-with-a-legend-tony-faulkner/

he speaks of two Omni's at 67cm and ORTF Pair in the center at around 33 min in...

Here is a Mix using the BPA (BryonsosPhasedArray) at Donna the Buffalo Thursday night: DFC of Soundboard AKG 460b CK61 PAS/NOS & NAK CM300 CP3 JBMod on 1meter space bar

http://www.archive.org/download/donna2012-01-19.mix_AKG461_CM300CP3/dtb01191210.mp3

[dlh]

Trying to find the interview with Faulker...is this the one?

http://www.rodetv.com/iwal/interview-with-a-legend-tony-faulkner/

he speaks of two Omni's at 67cm and ORTF Pair in the center at around 33 min in...

Here is a Mix using the BPA (BryonsosPhasedArray) at Donna the Buffalo Thursday night: DFC of Soundboard AKG 460b CK61 PAS/NOS & NAK CM300 CP3 JBMod on 1meter space bar

http://www.archive.org/download/donna2012-01-19.mix_AKG461_CM300CP3/dtb01191210.mp3

This is the one I'm referring to:
http://www.recordproduction.com/tony-faulkner.htm

[Hypnocracy]

Screen shot for Gutbucket from the Rode interview at 33:42



If he is AB'ing it...this is some dis-information

[dlh]

Thanks, Hynocracy.
Maybe it's old-age, but that must be the interview I used to build the bar in the OP. (I don't feel quite so stupid now.)
I just arrived at 33:30 in the interview.  Now I just wonder what effect angling the omnis has.

[Hypnocracy]

This may shed some light on the different spacing for the center pair...sounds like he uses ORTF for Cards but spreads the pattern out for Sub-Cards

Faulkner: One always tries to reason why certain things work. I would hate to come over as some kind of waffler re. 27" or otherwise. I have always favored using relatively small interspacing between microphone capsules; ie, spacing the main mikes on a bar rather than 10' or more apart on separate stands.

If figure-8 capsules are angled at 90 degrees, I like them as coincident as possible. If the figure-8 capsules are parallel, I use the "phased-array" arrangement of a few inches' spacing. With cardioids, the spacing I like is different again, and there is, of course, the famous technique from ORTF that follows the same concept. With subcardioids, for me the spacing increases, while with omnis the spacing increases to around 27".

I think the spacing has to increase because we are battling against too much sense of "in-phase" in the critical frequency area where the ear-brain combination is switching between timing-phase and amplitude methods of determining source position. With omnis spaced, say, 6" apart, the timing-phase-amplitude differences would be too small to relate with what the human ear spacing normally works with, and I would have to use some kind of intervening processing to modify the difference signal. (There is such a system described in the 1931 Blumlein stereo patent.)

LINK
http://www.stereophile.com/content/project-k622-page-2

[dlh]

http://www.rodetv.com/iwal/interview-with-a-legend-tony-faulkner/
That interview has been a great "relisten".  I have nearly no experience compared to him, but our philosophies are congruent.
Loved his comments about "five point naught" and "four point naught" surround.  It also reinforces my decision to keep my audio listening system separate from my movie surround system.
Also mp3, " . . . a bit sad really."  " . . . peeing in the soup syndrome . . ."
He keeps up with all technology, even refers to the Tascam 680.
Regarding backups and redundancy, ". . . in my business, in order to survive, you become an old woman . . ."
So many soundbites make it great fun to watch.

[Gutbucket]

That Rode interview was great, thanks for the link.

I stand corrected on the mic angles, thanks for clearing that up.  Angling the omnis makes sense as they become directional at the highest frequencies where the wavelengths become similar to the capsule's diameter, so doing that produces some intensity based stereo up there where the time of arrival phase differences which work for lower frequencies based on spacing alone become so large they are more or less random and meaningless.

I really enjoyed all his comments and listened closely to his thoughts on surround and how he loves it but his main problem with it for music is crappy center speakers and improperly setup playback sytems of most people. I record a lot of surround just for my own listening really, and I use the same system for movies, but I have good quality full-sized speakers all around and identical ones for left/center/right- the same setup which he describes as sounding glorious. Everything he says about all that rings true to my far more limited experience, including how the benefit is not just surrounding envelopment and ambience but that instruments just sound right and more natural.  I do like recording for and using the center channel, which can also be very helpful when I mix it all down to 2 channels to hear it anywhere else, but unlike Tony I'm not even attempting to record surround for release and playback on variable and often crappy systems.  I can understand what a nightmare that could be.

What a cool guy.

Off to tread the Stereophile article linked above..

[phil_er_up]

Adjusting the depth of the center channels can "spread or accentuate"* the resulting mix. It is often preferred to run the center channels slightly forward of the flanking pair. A good product example is the Grace Spacebar Overbridge attachment is designed to make such an adjustment.

*shameless stolen from the SB-CMB product literature

I have the grace bar with the Spacebar overbridge.
How far forward do you run the center channels on the bar?

Unfortunately, I don't yet have my overbridge attachment. I had ordered it from Posthorn, but Jerry couldn't seem to locate it in his backstock. Going to order it from Grace's website today to remedy my situation.

I will probably run it mostly forward. More than anything, I'm just excited to experiment with some three mic setups to better isolate the performance from crowd noise. I imagine I will run it more forward, but not really sure till I do some trial and error.

I love that there is another spacebar owner on this forum. The build quality is nothing short of superb; well worth the scratch if you can afford it!

I have run my center channel in various forward postitions on the  overbridge bar. From almost as far forward on the overbridge bar to almost even with the 2nd set of mics. There is a difference but have not be able to narrow it down to what that is due to venue and would have to do more tests.

One thing I don;t like is not an easy way to get the omni spread to 3 feet on that gracebar. Was thinking of building or modifiy one. How do you guys fit a 3 foot bar in your bag? It would not fit in mine. Guess could carry it with the mic stand.

Thinking of maybe trying to build arms on to my current gracebar that would swing out and to 3 feet and then fold them back in when not using them, my bar foot print would stay the same.

[Hypnocracy]

CliveStaples a member on TS made mine...it was two standard boom extensions that were leftover from a project...It folds to a little over 1.5 ft long...

[Gutbucket]

I'm typically using DPA 4060 miniature omnis which are light enough to be supported on arms made from telescoping antennas.  They provide great flexibility for any desired spacing of up to 2 meters and store in just 15" or less in the bag, but aren't substantial enough to support larger/heaver mics.

[Massive Dynamic]

One thing I don;t like is not an easy way to get the omni spread to 3 feet on that gracebar. Was thinking of building or modifiy one. How do you guys fit a 3 foot bar in your bag? It would not fit in mine. Guess could carry it with the mic stand.

Thinking of maybe trying to build arms on to my current gracebar that would swing out and to 3 feet and then fold them back in when not using them, my bar foot print would stay the same.

I just got a drill press for my birthday, and I am definitely planning to modify the type of bar I made for Hypnocracy to be even more user friendly and will cost far less than the Space Bar. Planning to offer this in the Retail Section in the next few weeks.

[alpine85]

I use the Manfrotto "triple microphone holder" [ http://www.adorama.com/BG154B.html ] and carry it in a bag w/ my stand.  It's a little pricey - I found a good deal on a new one on eBay a while back - plus it's only 26 inches (might be a deal breaker for some).   Rock solid, though!  I haven't tried it yet, but I suppose you could move the center mics forward with 2 t-bars, or even further with a superclamp and extension pole.

Thanks for the link to that Rode interview! Watched the whole thing (an hour+) the other night... good stuff!

[ellaguru]

I use the Manfrotto "triple microphone holder" [ http://www.adorama.com/BG154B.html ] and carry it in a bag w/ my stand.  It's a little pricey - I found a good deal on a new one on eBay a while back - plus it's only 26 inches (might be a deal breaker for some).   Rock solid, though!  I haven't tried it yet, but I suppose you could move the center mics forward with 2 t-bars, or even further with a superclamp and extension pole.

Thanks for the link to that Rode interview! Watched the whole thing (an hour+) the other night... good stuff!

i have the same bar and love it..spaced omnis with hypers on the middle stud

[John Willett]

I just use the 66cm Grace SpaceBar with extra mounts and the centre mount. 



Review HERE.

[Hypnocracy]

John...I'm trying to find out what the forward or rearward adjustment with the bridge. It appears to me that the Faulkner Array has all the microphones in a parallel line? I saw this in the Review you have linked

Grace are about to launch a special bridge (pictured) for a central mic. With this arrangement, you’ll be able to have an M/S rig with omni outriggers, or use, for example, the triple ‘OCT’ arrangement of a pair of supercardioids and a middle cardioid eight centimetres forward of the others.

Are there any other uses for the bridge?

[Gutbucket]

John...I'm trying to find out what the forward or rearward adjustment with the bridge. It appears to me that the Faulkner Array has all the microphones in a parallel line? I saw this in the Review you have linked

Grace are about to launch a special bridge (pictured) for a central mic. With this arrangement, you’ll be able to have an M/S rig with omni outriggers, or use, for example, the triple ‘OCT’ arrangement of a pair of supercardioids and a middle cardioid eight centimetres forward of the others.

Are there any other uses for the bridge?

Since that one is already taken, we need a better name for this array! 

I drilled and taped holes at the ends of the legs of a small folding lightstand base which provides this same spacing to use for that OCT arrangement on-stage it a few times.  There was already a threaded hole at the end of one leg, I just did the same to the other two.  Obviously that won't work aloft, but it's an easy mod for anyone using one of these stands.  To use them I screw in studs and attach the shock mounts to them. Depending on which way I orient the ADK TL supermounts I can vary the capsule spacing from 12"-24" (30-64cm).  That's what I used to run the 12" spaced parallel 8's last week.